11. Dr Doulman commenced his presentation by stating that the
IPOA-IUU had been concluded within the framework of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries. He provided information relating to the Code of
Conduct in terms of its background; process of elaboration; purpose and
objectives; and structure and implementation. He pointed out that the effective
implementation of the Code of Conduct provided a challenge for countries in
their efforts to devise appropriate fisheries policies and measures that would
promote adjustment in the fisheries sector so that responsible and long-term
sustainability outcomes would be achieved.

12. The presentation relating to the IPOA-IUU provided
information about the extent, scope and impact of IUU fishing; the international
responses to IUU fishing at the global, regional and national levels; the
elaboration process within FAO for the IPOA-IUU; the structure and contents of
the IPOA-IUU, including the challenges to be met by regional fishery management
organizations or arrangements (RFMOs) if their conservation and management
effort were to be successful. Dr Doulman noted that IUU fishing flourished
principally because some countries failed to meet their obligations under
international law with respect to effective flag State control. For this reason,
countries and RFMOs were required to look beyond conventional solutions and
adopt and implement a wider and more innovative suite of measures to combat IUU
fishing. This was one of the fundamental reasons why FAO had agreed to elaborate
the IPOA-IUU. He indicated that the IPOA-IUU had the potential to contribute to
long-term sustainable fisheries. When reinforced and supported by other national
and international fisheries instruments, the IPOA-IUU could marshal and
facilitate cooperative and targeted action against the root cause of IUU
fishing. The paper upon which the presentation was based is attached as Appendix
E.

13. Some participants noted that although they had been aware
of the elaboration of the IPOA-IUU, a lack of financial capacity had prevented
their countries from participating in the process leading up to the adoption of
the IPOA-IUU. Participants agreed that had their countries contributed more
fully to the negotiation process they would have felt a greater sense of
"ownership" of the IPOA-IUU. Such "ownership" could have expected to engender
more enthusiastic involvement in the implementation process.

14. The Workshop noted the voluntary nature of the IPOA-IUU.
Some participants queried whether, that in view of the need to address IUU
fishing on all fronts if progress was to be made in combating the problem, the
IPOA-IUU should not have been concluded as a binding instrument. It was pointed
out that although the IPOA-IUU was voluntary, countries after having developed
their NPOAs-IUU, should review their fisheries and policy legislation to ensure
that it reflected their position on IUU fishing. Participants agreed that it was
preferable to have strong and enforceable national legislation rather than a
binding international instrument.

15. Many participants noted the important role played by fisheries monitoring,
control and surveillance (MCS) in combating IUU fishing. The importance of vessel
monitoring systems (VMS) was also highlighted. It was pointed out that MCS/VMS
could be expensive and time-consuming to implement. The role being played by
the International MCS Network was discussed and some participants requested
further information about the Network. Participants were referred to the Networks
webpage (http://imcsnet.org)
for further details.

16. Some participants raised the issue of MCS observer
programmes and their costs. Several participants advised the Workshop that in
their countries the cost of these programmes was borne by industry. The Workshop
agreed that it was reasonable to consider observer costs as a fisheries
management cost that should not be borne by government. It was noted by some
participants that when the cost of observer programmes costs were initially
raised with industry, there was opposition to meeting these costs. However, in
time this opposition subsided and full cost recovery was now practiced in a
number of industrial fisheries in the region.

17. Some participants also pointed out that a recurring
problem with observer programmes was unprofessional behaviour on the part of
observers. It was suggested that a rigorous training programme and the
installation of a strong sense of professionalism could assist in addressing
such behaviour. Another means could be to require observers to account for their
time on board vessels by completing an activity log on an hourly basis and
detailed post-trip report and debriefing. The Workshop was informed that in
another region such accounting had proved beneficial in encouraging a strong
professional commitment on the part of observers.

18. With respect to MCS observer training, the Workshop was
advised that there were good training facilities in the region. It was noted
that countries in need of such training could possibly seek assistance under
Technical Cooperation between Developing Countries (TCDC) arrangements from the
countries with those facilities.

19. The need for regional cooperation if IUU fishing was to be
effectively addressed was underscored by many participants. The Workshop noted
that it would be relatively futile for one country to adopt stringent port State
measures, for example, and for its neighbours not to implement similar types of
measures. It was agreed that regional cooperation in the implementation of
measures to combat IUU fishing was required if loopholes were to be closed and
weak points eliminated.

20. With respect to the management of shared inland fisheries,
the Workshop took note that regional cooperation would only be achieved through
a formal mechanism. It was noted that such collaboration could also seek to
harmonize fisheries regulations and activities in a wide range of areas
including IUU fishing. In the absence of such regional cooperation, it was
suggested that the Code of Conduct should be used as the yardstick for
management and problem-solving (i.e., national actions taken should reflect, and
be consistent with, the Code of Conduct). In the cases of the Indian Ocean Tuna
Commission (IOTC) and the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), it was
pointed out that these organizations are, inter alia, promoting
cooperation and harmonization through information exchanges and joint MCS
arrangements.

21. Some participants noted that a precedent existed for the
harmonization of measures in fisheries in the region. This harmonization has
been promoted by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) with the
assistance of FAO. SADC has a Fisheries Protocol that provides the overall
framework for fisheries cooperation of SADC States. This had been signed by all
States but was yet to be ratified. Some participants speculated that there was a
lack of political will on the part of some governments to take the necessary
steps towards implementation of regional or international instruments. Other
participants pointed out that the lack of implementation could be due to
technical and financial constraints on the part of Members.

22. The Workshop noted a planned meeting of SADC Fisheries
Ministers that would focus on the problems of, and means of addressing, IUU
fishing. It was agreed that this meeting would greatly benefit efforts in the
region to combat IUU fishing.

23. Some participants spoke of the need for effective
coordination at the national level to ensure that IUU fishing was addressed in
an expeditious and consistent manner. It was noted, for example, that
coordination between the agency responsible for vessel registration and the
agency responsible for the issuing of fishing authorizations sometimes led to
inconsistent decisions. It was pointed out that the IPOA-IUU encouraged
governments to promote effective national coordination in their efforts to
combat IUU fishing.

24. The Workshop noted, with some satisfaction, that the
IPOA-IUU recognized the special requirement of developing countries and, in
particular, the human and institutional capacity constraints they encountered in
implementing the IPOA-IUU. The Workshop was encouraged by the activities listed
in paragraph 86 of the IPOA-IUU and wished to be further informed of the
possibilities of assistance. Some participants noted their lack of technical and
financial capacity to undertake fisheries policy reviews to reflect IUU fishing
issues in terms of the measures contained in the IPOA-IUU. Participants
acknowledged that FAO assistance for such policy reviews would be especially
valuable and for the subsequent review of fisheries legislation to reflect the
elements included in their NPOAs-IUU.